[orwin]

The result will be that speech will be suppressed for 99% of the population and only a select few can talk. If it was a principled position the effects would be 10 times greater but since he compromised himself for money, the effects would be minimal.

I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it.

If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no?

[edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.

[mrmlz]

? Why would it be suppressed for 99%?

Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that.

I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech.

Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what they've done in many countries, DDR for example. Do you not agree?

[orwin]

It's suppressed for everyone who don't have Starlink or the mean/knowledge to pay for a VPN on their phone.

Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'.

Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal attack, I must have been wrong, it was a perfectly good faith argument, so I will respond:

I'm saying that Elon Musk see himself above Brazil court of justice, and act like a supranational power. If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw.

I will add that i apologize for the sarcasm but I will let it there, because that's what I would have responded in real life. If you _really_ didn't intend it as a personal attack, you should consider how you communicate with your peers. The first message wasn't any better and close enough to an ad hominem I considered not engaging, but I thought I wasn't clear enough and i needed clarification, so it was a good vehicle. Sorry again if it wasn't a personal attack.

[mrmlz]

Reading this comment compared to your first - I'm having even more trouble understanding what you are really on about.

The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".

Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct? Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?

You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.

"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?

Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.